New species is first carnivore found in the Americas in 35 years

Raccoon relative was mistaken for an olingo for a century.

The first new carnivore species found in the Western Hemisphere in 35 years, the olinguito, is a furry, kilogram-sized creature that's a relative of raccoons. It inhabits the cloud forests of the northern Andes, and samples of it were present in museums for decades—they were just mistaken for a closely related species, the olingo.

The newly discovered species came about because scientists decided they wanted to have a better handle on the olingos (genus Bassaricyon), which are native to South America. These small, furry mammals are hard to study because they are both nocturnal and spend most of their lives in the forest canopy where they feed on fruit. Researchers set about sequencing DNA from the animals and examining museum samples for differences in traits. In the end, they identified four distinct species, three that inhabit the lowlands and a fourth that lives at higher elevations in the northern Andes.

That fourth species was previously thought to simply be a population of one of the three known species. But the authors noted that it had some physical differences and was actually a bit smaller than its relatives (hence the diminutive "olinguito"). DNA evidence indicated it was the first member of the genus to split off from the remaining populations.

Field work in the area led to some confirmed sightings of the otherwise elusive creature, which is why we have photos to share.

I was confused for a couple minutes after reading the description of the critter. It's the first member of carnivora discovered in the Americas in 35 years. I was thinking of the layman's meaning of 'carnivore', red in nail and tooth (it's an omnivore).

I was confused for a couple minutes after reading the description of the critter. It's the first member of carnivora discovered in the Americas in 35 years. I was thinking of the layman's meaning of 'carnivore', red in nail and tooth (it's an omnivore).

Yeah, I also came here to point out the oddity of a fruit-eating carnivore. Selective pressure has probably led to some very alert fruit around those parts. Sneaking up on a plum can be tricky.

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool."

I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

Well ... It's kinda pushing it to claim it is the first found in 35 years as the only reason they went looking for it in the wild was because they found its skull in a museum storage drawer where its been sitting for decades. There are even indications that a member of the species was exhibited to public in multiple zoos ( it was misidentified as a closely related species and transfer between different zoo population in an attempt to get it to breed- not surprising ineffectively as it was with the wrong species). This was not a completely unknown species, just a misidentified one. So its the first new species of carnivore identified from stored remains and then located in the wild in 35 years., ... Or how ever long, if ever, its actually been since that last happened.

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool."

I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

All lines in nature are blurry, some a lot more than others. Discreteness is human thing, more specifically, a feature of the way our brain works.

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool."

I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

All lines in nature are blurry, some a lot more than others. Discreteness is human thing, more specifically, a feature of the way our brain works.

There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation.

This is called a ring species and a good example of one way speciation can occur.

I was confused for a couple minutes after reading the description of the critter. It's the first member of carnivora discovered in the Americas in 35 years. I was thinking of the layman's meaning of 'carnivore', red in nail and tooth (it's an omnivore).

Yeah, I also came here to point out the oddity of a fruit-eating carnivore. Selective pressure has probably lead to some very alert fruit around those parts. Sneaking up on a plum can be tricky.

It was heartbreaking to see those kids faces after they spent weeks nursing the plum back to health, only to have it devoured by an olinguito moments after it was re-released into the wild.

There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation.

This is called a ring species and a good example of one way speciation can occur.

One of my old BiSc profs said that there's two kinds of biologists -- "splitters", and "lumpers".(Obviously, he was a "splitter".)

Without a picture it isn't the best of size indicators. The animal might be very long and thin or made of lead or something.

Just 3 mm thick, it sails from tree to tree. What you're seeing is just a picture of a carnivore which is patterned on its skin as a defense mechanism. The photographer must have got a flat-on view. Quite fearsome at 3 square meters. Their bodies contain almost no water, to reduce density. After catching an updraft, it wraps its expansive skin around a bunch of fruit and uses their moisture and nutrients instead.

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool."

I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

All lines in nature are blurry, some a lot more than others. Discreteness is human thing, more specifically, a feature of the way our brain works.

only blurry in photography and biology, quantum physics... not so much

There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation.

This is called a ring species and a good example of one way speciation can occur.

One of my old BiSc profs said that there's two kinds of biologists -- "splitters", and "lumpers".(Obviously, he was a "splitter".)

Wikipedia wrote:

The earliest use of these terms was apparently by Charles Darwin, in a letter to J. D. Hooker in 1857. “(Those who make many species are the ‘splitters,’ and those who make few are the ‘lumpers.’)” They were introduced more widely by the biologist George G. Simpson in his 1945 work “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals.”

There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation.

This is called a ring species and a good example of one way speciation can occur.

One of my old BiSc profs said that there's two kinds of biologists -- "splitters", and "lumpers".(Obviously, he was a "splitter".)

Wikipedia wrote:

The earliest use of these terms was apparently by Charles Darwin, in a letter to J. D. Hooker in 1857. “(Those who make many species are the ‘splitters,’ and those who make few are the ‘lumpers.’)” They were introduced more widely by the biologist George G. Simpson in his 1945 work “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals.”

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool." I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

All lines in nature are blurry, some a lot more than others. Discreteness is human thing, more specifically, a feature of the way our brain works.

only blurry in photography and biology, quantum physics... not so much

I find it fascinating what the story implies about inexpensive sequencing. As opposed to, "We have this really key question that can be only answered by sequencing, so let's spend the money," it is, "Might as well sequence as it is another handy (and inexpensive) tool." I expect routine sequencing will dig up lots of interesting cases, and might even lead to a more nuanced definition of species. There are already the sparrows on the US West Coast (if memory serves) where each can breed with the next sparrow north-south (e.g. sub-species), but not with non-neighbors (e.g. separate species)---kind of a sliding scale of relation. And how do you deal with genetically ~identical populations with different behavior and/or appearance (e.g. mammal vs. fish eating killer whales). I wonder if we will get many more examples with widespread sequencing where the lines are blurry?

All lines in nature are blurry, some a lot more than others. Discreteness is human thing, more specifically, a feature of the way our brain works.

only blurry in photography and biology, quantum physics... not so much

So where's that electron, exactly?

Like the photon it is everywhere, there is only one, it just keeps repeating as it moves backwards and forward thru time.

It's slightly smaller than the other ones, so it's a different species. This bird has different coloured plumage to that one, so it's a different species. If humans were classified like this, how many species would we be?!